Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32024 (CAL)

URMILA GHOSH AND ANR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/18240/2026 · 2026-08-06

Saugata Bhattacharyya

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

35. 35. 06.08.2026 (D/L) (D/L) CT. NO. 05 CT. NO. 05 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 18240 OF 2026 URMILA GHOSH AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Masud Karim, Adv. Mr. Asif Reja Ansari, Adv. …For Petitioners Ms. Mary Datta, Adv. Ms. Shetparna Ray, Adv. …For State Mr. Nirmalendu Bera, Adv. Mr. Gora Chand Samanta, Adv. Ms. Gopa Das, Adv. …For Private Respondents 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioners is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate representing petitioners submits that agricultural land in question belongs to petitioners but private respondents are restraining them from enjoying peaceful possession over the said land prompting petitioners to approach this Court with the present writ petition seeking direction upon the concerned police authorities which would facilitate petitioners to enjoy peaceful possession over the said land. 3. State respondents and respondent nos.5 to 7 are represented by learned advocates who have jointly submitted that issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature. 4. From the submissions made on behalf of parties, it appears that a title suit being no.77 of 2026 is pending which was instituted by private respondents and [2] there is an ad interim order of status quo to be maintained by the parties of the said suit in connection with the suit property. 5. If petitioners find ad interim order of status quo passed in aforesaid title suit is not being adhered to thereby denying right of petitioners to enjoy possession over the agricultural land, in that event, petitioners are required to approach civil forum in pursuit of remedy. 6. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide inter se right of the parties over the land in question. 7. Hence, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 8. However, this order shall not preclude petitioners to approach Civil Court, if so advised. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)